[Advaita-l] Power of Brahman

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 22:01 Srinath Vedagarbha, <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Then I would argue -- how do "you" know that there is such thing as
> "Brahman" to begin with?
>
Shruti. But knowing that there is something called Brahman is very
different from knowing what that Brahman is.

Since all your knowledge is conditioned by upAdhi, "Brahman" is quite
> object of your knowledge. You can't, therefore argue there is such thing as
> "shuddha brahman" as subject.
>
> Even if you argue, shruti says so, it won't fly -- because such shruti is
> read/heard using the same upAdhi enabled sAkshi and therefore vEdavaidya
> knowledge is pure objective.
>

This is not necessary. Just because Shruti is heard by the ear (anAtma) and
understood by the buddhi (anAtma) does not mean that the thing referred to
in a knowledge revealed by the shruti is objective.

If the Shruti was saying there is something called Brahman and it is
different from you, then yes, knowing such a Brahman through the Shruti
would be objective knowledge. But Shruti, after saying whoever knows
himself as Brahman is all य एवं वेदाहं ब्रह्मास्मीति स इदं सर्वं भवति, goes
on to say if you know Brahman as something other than yourself, you don't
know Brahman at all अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद.

Elsewhere it says, great fear awaits he who assumes there is one iota of
difference between himself and Brahman, यदा ह्येवैष एतस्मिन्नुदरमन्तरं
कुरुते । अथ तस्य भयं भवति ।

Thus shruti is teaching that the Brahman is not something objective,
something other than you, as you may initially think when it talks of
Brahman being the substratum of the world - it's creator, preserver and
destroyer - in fact, it is you. So what should we take as the object of
"you"?

Is it the "I", which is normally assumed by people when they say "I know
myself"? No.
When shruti says you are Brahman, it is almost always not the "I" that
people refer to in sentences such as "I know myself" - they are typically
referring  to the physical body, the mind, the sense organs, etc. What
Shruti is referring  to in the mahAvAkya is the 'I', without any of these
appurtenances. If people refer to any of these things when they say "I",
then that "I" is not Brahman.

But isn't this "I" something that Shruti teaches, also conditioned by the
upAdhi and is therefore objective? No. Because the "I" that Shruti says is
Brahman is the self evident "I" that is apparent to everyone on to which
everyone superimposes things that are not "I".

Isn't the "I" thought generated in the mind and if "I" is the object of
that thought, the knowledge of "I" is necessarily objective?
No, because the "I" thought is a reflection of the "I" - that reflection is
an object of "I", but not the "I" which is the source of the reflection.

But isn't the source "I" knowing the reflection "I" a case of "I know
myself" and therefore there is kartr karma virodha? No, because the source
"I" that sees is different from the "I" that is seen.

But how is that "I" known? It is self-evident, that is, it is known as the
knower of all, but is never the known.

That "I" is what is being spoken of as Brahman in advaita.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan

>